Proposal to put Reagan on $50 Bill

[Flashy]

Flashy expounding ad nauseum in typical psuedointellectual fashion on random topics of which he has a cursory knowledge, fleshed out by googlefacts, rife with spelling errors, appalling grammar and bad syntax.

Followed by trite and cliche comments.


No news at all.

oh and thanks for the notation on my spelling errors...if you'd like to snipe over minutiae, you might wish to flesh out the proper spelling of that big last word in your first line.

LOL...nice one, twit.

I guess you were typing too fast, eh? Didn't you mention that was not an excuse?

Yeah...hoisted on your own petard.

 

[karoo]

zzzzzzzzzzz....maxcock in melodramatic hysterics shocker.

news at 11.

No kidding...

Maybe we should all just bow down in awe to his (obvious!) intellectual and rhetorical superiority...

 

[D_Cateryke Cheesysmell]

Yeah I'm offended and it has nothing to do with your support of Reagan.

How do you get from,

dislike of Grant because he was a Yankee

to

to express hatred for Yankees is like saying you would have rather have had the slavers win.

??

What I said was that Grant was a drunk and a yankee. Both are accurate, I don't see how just using the word "yankee" implies that I want slavery to come back. You are completely mischaracterizing a benign remark. Where have I expressed anything close to "hatred for yankees" or a preference for slavery? I'm espousing some pretty republican positions here. You remember Republicans from history class, right? The guys who got rid of slavery? Your attack is utter nonsense feeding off the hyper-offended tone of this thread.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

No kidding...

Maybe we should all just bow down in awe to his (obvious!) intellectual and rhetorical superiority...

Ummmmm... why don't you try adding something to the discussion instead of hiding behind Flashy here? Lemme guess... he's saying everything you would have said? A likely story.

Despite the battle of words the two are engaged in, both Flashy and maxcok have valid points to bring to the table. What some people don't understand is that it's virtually impossible for most gay or lesbian people who grew up in the 80s, who had to live through the AIDS crisis or was directly affected by it, to view Ronald Reagan as any kind of humanitarian. Even if you mention many of other things that happened during his presidency (such as the dismantling of the Berlin Wall), some issues will resonate more with people than others. This is a classic example of it. Going by some of the past experiences maxcok has listed, it's pretty easy to see why he would be getting a little emotional here.

You, on the other hand, are leeching off the words of someone else. You have no original thought of your own, and through your own social & political bigotry think that maxcok is saying something that doesn't make sense. Well, to a closed minded, uneducated straight man who makes rash assessments based on his belligerent, limited perception of reality, we wouldn't expect you to understand what the world is like through the eyes of a homosexual. And if you actually gave a damn about other people (instead of desperately trying to find validation for your ignorant ideologies), you'd at least try to comprehend what maxcok is saying.

So no... you don't have to bow. Considering the view from here, you don't have to be at a 90 degree angle to figure out you're an ass.

 

[StormfrontFL]

How do you get from, to ??

What I said was that Grant was a drunk and a yankee. Both are accurate, I don't see how just using the word "yankee" implies that I want slavery to come back. You are completely mischaracterizing a benign remark. Where have I expressed anything close to "hatred for yankees" or a preference for slavery? I'm espousing some pretty republican positions here. You remember Republicans from history class, right? The guys who got rid of slavery? Your attack is utter nonsense feeding off the hyper-offended tone of this thread.

The Republicans of the past have nothing in common with the Republicans of today and you know that.

If you had simply stated that Grant shouldn't be on the bill because he was a drunk that would have been fine. By adding yankee you made that part of your justification of his unworthiness. As a white guy you haven't had to deal with the same things I've dealt with in regards to racism especially in the South. There are people here who are still angry that the schools were desegregated and that Jim Crow is no longer the law of the land. I never stated that you were in favor of slavery but that your remark was inappropriate and insensitive.

 

[Northland]

I had edited the last line of my post to more accurately reflect my meaning, apparently as you were composing your response. I apologize for any confusion that may have ensued. I stand by my revision, which like the previous line, is obviously a figure of speech intended to be humorous

Let me see, the previous line was "I apologize." So that was a humorous figure of speech?

This is a presumptuous and gross mischaracterization of my political leanings. I do not rail against "all things Republican". If you were to look at some of my posts, you would see that I have in fact campaigned for, voted for, and supported Republicans in office, notably a past governor of my current home state and the mayor of my former hometown San Diego, along with several councilmembers, etc. The comments I made regarding Reagan are not due to his party affiliation, they have to do with his actions and inactions in office.

I was well aware of those facts, intimately aware, long before you or Flashy presented them.

As an AIDS activist and educator I spent time in New York (including Gracie Mansion), Washington, Chicago and all over California, from San Francisco to San Diego and throughout the interior. These "facts" are tangential to the discussion, as I never maintained that Reagan was solely responsible for the lack of response to the AIDS crisis, as you and Flashy have characterized.

Whatever you say, Senor Denier.

I long ago decided to detach from any further discussion of the AIDS crisis here - notably before you entered the thread, and notably before these tangential "facts" were presented - as it was far too personal, frustrating and upsetting for me. I have done decades of "reading" on the subject, more importantly I lived it. As for "flapping your ignorant lips", I would suggest you adhere to your own advice.

Long ago? The thread isn't that old!

Back to the AIDS crisis, I am a New Yorker, live here, live in the heart of AIDS outbreak central, Greenwich Village, have been here for years. Had sex with a stranger from the Ramrod, November 1981 was terrified by January, I knew what was out there. I read the New York Times magazine section where they spoke of this frightening new disease, and was part of the early days of GMHC, through monetary contributions and telling men and women of its existence and giving their number to men left and right.

A mysterious growth in early 1984 on my left shin and another on my right thigh caused a panic. I knew what was out there. The biopsy for each showed they were not cancer, what a relief! I watched as Michael L. died, he went from thinking he had a simple pneumonia to the reality and held on for several years, he died a terrible death in 1988, soon after Michael H. (brother of a Hollywood actress from Airplane and What About Bob?) died. I loved Michael H.- even though he could at times be a little arrogant, even obnoxious. He gave me a bottle of champagne one christmas, he gave a lot that year, as an Account Exec. for a company which did P.R, mailings and printings, he had various accesses and freebies. Michael was a generous man, would give and give and always with a smile, even though you could look at him and see he had other things to do, he'd talk for an hour, rapt attention and truly enjoying every second. I no longer walk that block of w.15th Street where he lived because it's painful. I missed Michael H.'s funeral and cancelled dinner with Carolyn that night.

I took my bike for one last ride one day, crashed up towards Ellenville, landed in the hospital. Three pints of blood, I got tested every 3 months for 3 years from worry.

I've watched neighbors die, some slowly, some swiftly. I've seen the faces become drawn, the blotches appear, I've seen t-cell counts move back up and then drop and the death. I still have a couple of those divine yellow robes which St. Vincent's Hospital issued for the workers who associated with AIDS patients. I watched as St.Vinnies saved their ass for appearance, (lower their death rate)and shifted AIDS patients up to St.Claires on W.51st. Crisis died. Crisis was such a sweet gentle kind individual.

I watched Carlos as he went around infecting people. One day he got hit by a car, and as Deb said, 'he went rolling and rolling and rolling' the bastard was dead. Too many had been wounded by him though.

My original placement in this thread was to set people straight that there was plenty of blame regarding AIDS accountability, let's leave it at that, with thanks to all who helped over the years, realizing there's more work to be done, even if we are tired.

 

[midlifebear]

Well, since the "Yankees" are in so much of a hissy fit, I've been persuaded that not only should Reagan appear on the $50 bill but National Biscuit Company should be forced to imprint the Gipper's image on every Oreo Cookie from this day forward.


Harrrummmph!

 

[faceking]

I understand your frustration, but it is simply not the job of the Commander In Chief to wage crusades against new viruses.

.

Here ye....

 

[maxcok]

I was well aware of those facts, intimately aware, long before you or Flashy presented them. As an AIDS activist and educator I spent time in New York (including Gracie Mansion), Washington, Chicago and all over California, from San Francisco to San Diego and throughout the interior. These "facts" are tangential to the discussion, as I never maintained that Reagan was solely responsible for the lack of response to the AIDS crisis, as you and Flashy have characterized.

Whatever you say, Senor Denier.

What do you accuse me of denying? My experience, my words, or both? I have clearly stated that Reagan and his administration were woefully inadequate in responding to the AIDS crisis. Nowhere did I say Reagan was soley responsible, nor did I excuse others from being silent and neglectful. I haven't even mentioned any others till now. That is a tangent you and Flashy have pursued without me. It is Reagan after all, who is the subject of the thread - not Mario Cuomo, Ed Koch, etc. It is Reagan whose record is being discussed here, not those others.

As the sole elected representative of all the American people, the President is in the unique and powerful position to respond to a crisis and lead the nation, in this case: to tamp down the hysteria and the discrimination that ensued, to make research and education priorities, to set an example for those other politicians you feel compelled to bring up as distractions. Indeed, it was Reagan's responsibility to set an example for the entire nation. That's what responsible presidents do, it is more or less the job description. He did none of that, rather he pandered to the fear and loathing of the "Moral Majority" and the Christian right, allowing that fear, loathing and discrimination to persist and grow unchallenged, with disatrous results.

I defy you to show me where I said what you assert. I defy Flashy to show me where I said I "hated" Reagan, a charge he has repeatedly levelled at me. You can't, because I never said those things.

I long ago decided to detach from any further discussion of the AIDS crisis here - notably before you entered the thread, and notably before these tangential "facts" were presented - as it was far too personal, frustrating and upsetting for me.

​

Long ago? The thread isn't that old!

It seems old to me. Moreover the memory of those times is extremely painful to revisit. Made all the worse by having my knowledge and experience of those times attacked and called into question. It is stabbing at old wounds, and it is heartless and cruel. I detached from this subject a few days ago back on page 5, even choosing then not to respond to a lengthy rambling mean-spirited attack and gross mischaracterization of me by Flashy. I just couldn't bear it. We are now on page 11, and now I am compelled to respond. When I said "I long ago decided to detach", I was not speaking of literal time.

Back to the AIDS crisis, I am a New Yorker, live here, live in the heart of AIDS outbreak central, Greenwich Village, . . . .

I hope you will not mind that I did not repost your entire quote. It was hard to read, and it stirred up more bad memories for me. I imagine those times were difficult for you as well, and if you are a feeling person, the memory must be painful as well. It is therefore all the more surprising to me that you have taken me to task, for reasons that are unclear to say the very least. It is more bizarre still, when one realizes you are no fan of Reagan yourself:

What?
How did you come up with that as a response to the following where I make clear, I have no love for Reagan? In the passage you quote, I state my antipathy towards Mr.Reagan, I at no time say we should put his face on money. Quite the opposite, making clear, I don't want his face on money, on a stamp or anything else.

Strangely, this quote comes in an over the top attack you made on Dreamer for using another of your quotes to discredit Reagan, which you bizarrely misinterpreted as him saying you endorse Reagan. It all makes me wonder if you might be somewhat less than clear and objective, if not a little unhinged.

It seems to me that you and Flashy are interested in a duel of personal experiences, which is also bizarre to me. The only reason I brought up my own personal experience at the beginning, rather reluctantly I might add, was to try to bring some perspective to people who do not understand, could not possibly understand, the devastating effect Reagan's silence and lack of focus had on the HIV community and those of us fighting on their behalf. How much valuable time was lost on research in those early years? How many more people became infected for lack of education? How many died from lack of treatment then, or died later from delays in developing treatments? I can also tell you, dying from AIDS in those days was not pretty.

At the time no one wanted to talk openly about safer sex practices or sexually transmitted diseases - least of all AIDS - and condoms were not discussed in polite society. Reagan's allegiance to the 'Moral Majority' was a death sentence for many, and created great misery for many others. His silence exacerbated the stigma and the discrimination inflicted against those who were infected, even those not infected but perceived to be part of a high risk community, many times with horrendous effect. His own Surgeon General, the chief health affairs officer of the nation, Dr. Everett Koop was silenced and forbidden from issuing a report until 1986!

In the absence of governmental response, organizations like ACT UP, GMHC in New York, AIDS Projects in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and elsewhere formed and took the initiatve. It is precisely because of that initiative and the persistence of these organizations, the application of political pressure through demonstrations, lobbying, etc., that things finally began to change on these fronts, and why we have the treatments and level of awareness that people today take for granted. That, and "nice" people like Rock Hudson, Elisabeth Glaser and Magic Johnson started showing up with AIDS.

I don't think it's possible to understand a fraction of this experience unless you were there and a part of the struggle. Certainly not if you were a prepubescent child at the time. Moreover, why anyone would need or want to have a contest of personal misery is completely alien to me. Like you I have plenty of personal stories from those years, more than I could ever relate, none that I want to relate here. It does strike me that your stories have a bit more to do with your own fears about your personal well-being, whereas mine are mostly about the concern and grief I bore for others. And like Flashy, I have also been there when friends and family battled critical non-HIV related illness.

I have experienced the death of many close friends, my parents, a sibling, and several close relatives from a variety of other causes. None of those involved anything like the stigma and fear surrounding AIDS in the '80's. No one told my mother she brought cancer on herself and deserved to die. No one I know was fired from their job or lost their home for having incurable liver disease. No one I know was screamed at, spat upon, beaten up, cut off by their family or thrown out in the street for any conventional illness or accident. Quite the contrary, they were surrounded with caring and concern and received the best established medical treatments available. In my experience, there is no comparison between this and what many AIDS patients suffered, and on a massive scale. As a final insult, they were discounted and ignored by their government, if not publicly reviled and humiliated.

Continued . . .

 

[maxcok]

Cont.

A few facts I would like to put on the table:

While it is true that Reagan spoke about AIDS prior to 1987, it was not until September '85. His comments were brief, and only in response to a reporter's question. His first unprompted public comments came in 1987 - seven years into his eight year term, and six years into the crisis.
The motto that had been adopted by ACT UP was "Silence = Death".

"AIDS research was chronically under-funded. When doctors at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health asked for more funding for their work on AIDS, they were routinely denied it. Between June 1981 and May 1982 the CDC spent less than $1 million on AIDS and $9 million on Legionnaire’s Disease. At that point more than 1,000 of the 2,000 reported AIDS cases resulted in death; there were fewer than 50 deaths from Legionnaire’s Disease. This drastic lack of funding would continue throughout the Reagan years."

(Note: Legionnaire's disease was an unusual respiratory ailment first identified in 1976 as a result of an outbreak among American war veterans attending a U.S. Bicentennial convention, in other words, "real Americans". Thirty-four people died, most were elderly with already compromised respiratory systems. Governmental response was overwhelming, and for political reasons continued long thereafter. Five years after this last ever outbreak in the U.S. it was still receiving nine times the amount of funding alloted to AIDS research.)

Quick must read: Rewriting the Script on Reagan: Why the President Ignored AIDS

Accurate in depth history, including funding, etc.:

Timeline: A Brief History of AIDS/HIV. AEGiS

Presidency, U.S. - The Body

Congress, U.S. - The Body

My original placement in this thread was to set people straight that there was plenty of blame regarding AIDS accountability, let's leave it at that, with thanks to all who helped over the years, realizing there's more work to be done, even if we are tired.

I am tired. I had to leave the work to others years ago. I don't think I need to be "set straight" about anything regarding this issue. Possibly some of the more technical details of recent scientific research, but I don't really need or necessarily care to understand that anymore. Interestingly, you used the same term, that Flashy used - 'let's get this straight'. Weird.

Before we "leave it at that" as you say, I want to give you an opportunity to revisit and amend any comments you made to me in your previous post. The text is below, and I have highlighted the portions which I found particularly offensive. I have also highlighted certain mischaracterizations of my words, regarding my political leanings for example, which I believe I have already refuted, though you have as yet failed to acknowledge. As you have been quite vocal on the board about your devotion to Christianity, I am especially curious to see how that might be reflected in your moral ethical response in this situation. I wonder how being a Christian guides you in the charity you extend to others, particularly those you have wronged and offended.

Your continued tirades against all things Republican are becoming exceedingly boring. Each time someone presents facts which level the playing field (such as a few pages back when both Flashy and myself made clear to you that it wasn't just Reagan who was responsible for the growth of the AIDS crisis, but people across the board, including NYC mayor Ed Koch, a resident of Greenwich Village, where AIDS was taking off) you shoot off your mouth with conflicting speech or your stock "Shut Up" because you can't stand the truth- or maybe you're too skull numbed to be able to absorb it.

At least others have the ability to hear and read both sides of the argument objectively- and that goes for both Reps. and Dems., you could net yourself a good education from reading instead of flapping your ignorant lips.

P.S. I have only ever told someone to"shut up", or "shut the fuck up" to be precise, twice on this board, both times in this thread, so I would hardly call that a "stock" phrase. And I hardly regret it. Please search my posting history if you like, but not under the name "Senor Denier".

Whatever you say, Senor Denier.

 

[gymfresh]

nowhere am i defending Reagan's record on the issue.

I am simply saying, that, what else could he have done, send everyone a cookie?

That's offensive.

Honestly? The most decent thing Ronald Reagan could have done was denounce those who were running around saying AIDS was "God's revenge". It is impossible to overstate how much impact those idiots had, for years, even on otherwise reasonable people who were starting to panic. It definitely affected fundraising efforts.

A president's job is to show leadership, early and sustained leadership. This means setting any national debate back on civil, reasonable terms.

How long did it take Gerald Ford to discuss, calm fears about and propose funding for Legionnaire's Disease? The answer: less than a month. In the first few weeks and months following July 1976 the nation was in a confused panic and no one knew for sure the origins and vectors of this often-fatal disease. It was infectious and even affected people who were nowhere near the outbreak, in Philadelphia, so Americans were deeply concerned. Conspiracy theories abounded, and the President stepped in forcefully to denounce them. The Surgeon General and the CDC were instructed to use every resource available to get to the source, while the President continued to talk about it. The bacterial cause was not publicly identified until early the next year.

But of course, that outbreak involved mostly God-fearing, hetero war veterans and their families. The number of dead was vastly smaller, but the victims were more valued and more innocent.

By the time Reagan even acknowledged he had heard of AIDS or spoke to the American people about what our government was doing about it, 10,000 had already died of the disease. Early leadership?

 

[Flashy]

That's offensive.

Honestly? The most decent thing Ronald Reagan could have done was denounce those who were running around saying AIDS was "God's revenge". It is impossible to overstate how much impact those idiots had, for years, even on otherwise reasonable people who were starting to panic. It definitely affected fundraising efforts.

A president's job is to show leadership, early and sustained leadership. This means setting any national debate back on civil, reasonable terms.

How long did it take Gerald Ford to discuss, calm fears about and propose funding for Legionnaire's Disease? The answer: less than a month. In the first few weeks and months following July 1976 the nation was in a confused panic and no one knew for sure the origins and vectors of this often-fatal disease. It was infectious and even affected people who were nowhere near the outbreak, in Philadelphia, so Americans were deeply concerned. Conspiracy theories abounded, and the President stepped in forcefully to denounce them. The Surgeon General and the CDC were instructed to use every resource available to get to the source, while the President continued to talk about it. The bacterial cause was not publicly identified until early the next year.

But of course, that outbreak involved mostly God-fearing, hetero war veterans and their families. The number of dead was vastly smaller, but the victims were more valued and more innocent.

By the time Reagan even acknowledged he had heard of AIDS or spoke to the American people about what our government was doing about it, 10,000 had already died of the disease. Early leadership?

of course you missed where i said nowhere was i defending Reagan's record...be offended if you want about me saying what else could he have done, give everyone a cookie...it does not change facts. It would not have changed one life of someone who died in the initial wave of the tragedy, or since. His administration spent 5-6 billion dollars during his term. NOt a single life could have been saved before there were treatments and even now, many lives cannot still be saved

that is a fact.

 

[slurper_la]

Reagan just isn't worth the brain cells. One has only to reflect on three things (besides his immoral ignorance in the AIDS crisis) to know the man was not worthy of the high of the high office he occupied:

1) "trees suck up too much oxygen"
2) "ketchup is a vegetable"
3) "voodoo economics" Reagan's proposals as defined by George HW Bush in the 1980 primary run

 

[Flashy]

I defy Flashy to show me where I said I "hated" Reagan, a charge he has repeatedly levelled at me. You can't, because I never said those things.

Kindly point out anywhere in my posts where i "repeatedly leveled at you". charges that you "hated Reagan"

i said once, in my very first post to you: "You have opined how much you hated him, how guys (gays) hated him, how he was close to the religious right who formed a large part of his mandate."

*YOU* can't find those "repeated" charges, because i never said it more than once in the first place. I have read every single post i made over. NOt one other example is there.

So, i say...*PROVE* your charge. Point out to me where it was "repeatedly leveled". if you can't i will expect a retraction and admission of an error or the acknowledgment of an outright lie for convenience in fortifying your attack

So, once again, your hysteria has led you to more errors...or, perhaps you have chosen to just lie, outright, with no pretense. Which is it? If i only said it once, your charge of me "repeatedly" stating it is totally false. Did you lie, or were you just so hysterical that you decided to embellish, or at least accuse without bothering to actually check? You have shown a flair for doing that thus far.




you said:

"Though the old Geezer had and still has many die-hard fans, there are many who lost their enthusiasm with the benefit of hindsight, and many more like myself who were never dazzled by his act and regarded him quite negatively, both then and now."

let us examine what "quite negatively" means

definition of negative: negative is unpleasant, depressing, or harmful.
:having the quality of something harmful or unpleasant
:reckoned in a direction opposite to that regarded as positive

definition of quite: completely, wholly, or entirely:
:to a considerable extent or degree

that sounds a lot like hate to me.

completely/entirely unpleasant, depressing or harmful.

does not sound like affection, or at worst, ambivalence, does it?

I detached from this subject a few days ago back on page 5, even choosing then not to respond to a lengthy rambling mean-spirited attack and gross mischaracterization of me by Flashy. I just couldn't bear it.

LOL...my "mischaracterization" of you came after you attacked me without any provocation and told me to shut the fuck up. Considering you mention a "lengthy rambling mean spirited attack"....you might wish to look up the sequence of events which *YOU* started. I did not even know who you were....in fact, you did not even have the guts to directly address me...you simply made your attack on me in a post addressed to someone else (as you are doing now...*AGAIN*)

http://www.lpsg.org/2635096-post56.html

there is your first attack, against me, with zero provocation. I responded...or do you not expect people to respond when you indirectly address them by calling them a fool and telling them to shut the fuck up? No mean-spirited intent there i suppose. You clearly were the victim and just "couldn't bear it".

and i did not respond to you with half the mean-spirit you deployed, calling me:

"twerp"
"dumbass"


and told me to "shut the fuck up" twice, once in gigantic and obnoxious red letters.

and of course, insulted my sexuality.

I read back through every post i made...nowhere did i call you a solitary bad name, or say anything approaching the level of obnoxiousness you reached right out of the gate.

finally, in my very last post, i called you a twit.

I am mean-spirited? More like you are a hysteric and delusional.

It seems to me that you and Flashy are interested in a duel of personal experiences, which is also bizarre to me.

I would expect that a great deal is bizarre to you...since once again, without any provocation, you have started up with me...by attacking me in another post, directed at another poster.

So i assume that this is your way of staying out of a direct fight, eh? Snipe, discredit, lie and insult, but don't actually doing it while addressing the person you are aiming it?

Oh and weren't you the one bitching about my "novelette" length posts a couple of days ago...guess you just could not resist stretching out your literary legs a bit for your recent posts, eh?

Pre-tty sneaky sis.

 

[maxcok]

^ You are a poseur. You are a liar. You are a joke.

^ An obsessive blowhard and an ignorant shithead.

^ You are beneath contempt and not worthy of response, little man.







P.S. Didn't read your latest rant either. Nobody cares. Sorry.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I am simply saying, that, what else could he have done, send everyone a cookie?

Wow... simply WOW.
If you're wondering why some people have such animosity towards you, then pay very close attention to this statement right here. I've been pretty civil with you as of late, but even you have to be willing to admit just how insensitive you're being right here.

I'm not going to get into an argument with anyone on this board... I've already said my piece, gone into MAJOR detail what should have been done and explained why some people (especially homosexuals) have such angst towards Ronald Reagan. To make a statement like this means you're also at fault at doing the same thing your opposition does. You say that gay men are overreacting about this? Put yourself in check here, Flashy. This was completely uncalled for.

 

[gymfresh]

be offended if you want about me saying what else could he have done, give everyone a cookie...it does not change facts. It would not have changed one life of someone who died in the initial wave of the tragedy, or since.
that is a fact.

Wow, that goes from offensive to just delusional.

I think you miss the point. Just saying "this Administration takes seriously any disease that is killing our citizens, and will not tolerate abusive, unhelpful talk about revenge" would have immediately improved the lives of thousands. Maybe kept hundreds in their homes, or from being rejected by family, friends or employers. Directing funding more rapidly and more urgently to appropriate agencies to deal with the emerging epidemic would indeed have reaped rewards faster and started saving lives earlier... maybe not in 1983 or 1984, but the dramatic treatment successes around 1997 might have happened years earlier. As I said, the relatively contained Legionnaire's Disease outbreak elicited a far faster, more urgent and more compassionate response from both the Ford and Carter White Houses than AIDS did from the Reagan White House.

I was a GMHC volunteer in NYC in the 1980s, a TPA volunteer educator in Chicago in the early 1990s and worked my heart out in HIV education in San Francisco and online from the late 1990s. I know the trajectory as well as anyone and I know how we pleaded in the early days for the White House to pay attention and start a "Manhattan Project" to address what we clearly could see was an emerging crisis.

I was already out of college and working in Washington DC when AIDS (then unnamed) was first reported. You were what, not even 10? I lived through every day of the reporting, including the politics. Please don't lecture me and others from what you have read about the era and then presume to know the funding and political crises we were dealing with.

 

[maxcok]

Wow, that goes from offensive to just delusional.

I think you miss the point. Just saying "this Administration takes seriously any disease that is killing our citizens, and will not tolerate abusive, unhelpful talk about revenge" would have immediately improved the lives of thousands. Maybe kept hundreds in their homes, or from being rejected by family, friends or employers. Directing funding more rapidly and more urgently to appropriate agencies to deal with the emerging epidemic would indeed have reaped rewards faster and started saving lives earlier... maybe not in 1983 or 1984, but the dramatic treatment successes around 1997 might have happened years earlier. As I said, the relatively contained Legionnaire's Disease outbreak elicited a far faster, more urgent and more compassionate response from both the Ford and Carter White Houses than AIDS did from the Reagan White House.

I was a GMHC volunteer in NYC in the 1980s, a TPA volunteer educator in Chicago in the early 1990s and worked my heart out in HIV education in San Francisco and online from the late 1990s. I know the trajectory as well as anyone and I know how we pleaded in the early days for the White House to pay attention and start a "Manhattan Project" to address what we clearly could see was an emerging crisis.

I was already out of college and working in Washington DC when AIDS (then unnamed) was first reported. You were what, not even 10? I lived through every day of the reporting, including the politics. Please don't lecture me and others from what you have read about the era and then presume to know the funding and political crises we were dealing with.

Ditto for me to all the above, except for mainly on the West Coast.

I tried that rationale with him, but apparently he knows more than I do. Maybe you'll have better luck.

Check this out f'rinstance:

" i suppose you do not remember Governor Mario Cuomo? I do. As Shilts stated in "And the Band Played on" in 1983 Cuomo nixed (on fiscal grounds) the Republican held state senate's bid to spend $5.2 million on AIDS research/prevention. "

This from someone who was 12 at the time? Not only have I known who Cuomo is and what he's been up to for a very long time, I actually read that book and met the author. More than once. Sheeeesh!

 

[finsuptx]

I think it's a rather moot point to argue about a dead president's actions or inactions regarding HIV/AIDS when even still today an informed society continues to spread this killer through unprotected sex and then refuses to get tested regularly before they have the chance to infect their next partners. It isn't a domino effect, it's an exponential effect.

Reagan could have done so much more, much quicker than he eventually did, and no one can say with any degree of certainty that it would have mattered. Infection rates continue to grow 30 years hence, and it's primarily the latest generation in the crosshairs. We know better now, and still we spread this horrendous disease.

WE can stop AIDS, but for a fleeting feeling, as a society, we refuse. No one deserves to die from AIDS, but you also reap what you sew. We've convinced the new generations that you don't automatically have to die from AIDS because there are new drugs that can keep you alive for another 20 years. People are still dying everyday from AIDS and it's our own damn fault.

 

[B_starinvestor]

I think it's a rather moot point to argue about a dead president's actions or inactions regarding HIV/AIDS when even still today an informed society continues to spread this killer through unprotected sex and then refuses to get tested regularly before they have the chance to infect their next partners. It isn't a domino effect, it's an exponential effect.

Reagan could have done so much more, much quicker than he eventually did, and no one can say with any degree of certainty that it would have mattered. Infection rates continue to grow 30 years hence, and it's primarily the latest generation in the crosshairs. We know better now, and still we spread this horrendous disease.

WE can stop AIDS, but for a fleeting feeling, as a society, we refuse. No one deserves to die from AIDS, but you also reap what you sew. We've convinced the new generations that you don't automatically have to die from AIDS because there are new drugs that can keep you alive for another 20 years. People are still dying everyday from AIDS and it's our own damn fault.

Good post, Fins.